|
|
Why distribute movies on film at all?
For a little over a thousand bucks (cheap!, relatively speaking), a properly
adjusted home theater setup will kick the CRAP out of any movie theaters' image quality AND sound quality. I'm not saying do away with movie theaters. But why do movie theaters still insist on using film based projectors? Most hit films are released on DVD in widescreen shortly after the film is released in theaters. Heck, some of them are released on DVD simultaneously. So what's the point of using the old dinosaur projectors, exactly? DVD offers the same image quality (better, depending on the display technology) and better sound quality than the scratchy soundtrack that accompanies movies on film. So why not use CRT or even DLP projectors to play DVD movies in ummmmmm, movie theaters? Think of all the money that would be saved in producing and shipping heavy, bulky rolls of film. A DVD can be shipped anywhere in the U.S. in two days for less than three bucks. If time is not critical, it can be shipped for a buck. Some might say we should do away with movie theaters entirely. I think they should just upgrade their video and sound technology to compete on a level playing field with the family rooms of many of their customers. I've heard all the complaints about obnoxious patrons, cell phones, etc. interrupting movies. All of that crap combined doesn't disappoint me as much as to pay 10 bucks for a ticket to see a movie displayed at a low level of brightness (cheap projector bulbs) with a grainy soundtrack. A DLP projector (for example) with a bad bulb STILL looks better than a film-based projector, if the source is up to snuff. (such as any DVD player hooked up with component cables) Sure, DLP can not display true black. And y'know what? . . . your average movie patron will never notice. They will see the really BRIGHT display of a DLP and think (Wow). So black looks gray? Who the frick cares? Meanwhile, the soundtrack will be like 1000% improved if the source is DVD. Even the worst DVD movies produced today offer 5.1 channel dolby digital. I hate dolby digital, but the source (DVD) sounds MUCH better than any movie theater, even at the relatively low bandwidth of DD 5.1 encoding. Some DVD soundtracks go up to 7.1 channel DTS (awesome), which very few movie theaters are even equipped to handle, at the moment. Heck, my own Onkyo/Yamaha/Cambridge Soundworks setup in my living room would blow the woofers off of any movie theater sound system for a seating area of about 150 seats or less. At extreme volume levels, even. And my home theater is hardly top end. Give me a Circuit City credit card and I could make any movie theater sound 1000% better, regardless of seating capacity. If I can do it using consumer grade equipment bought retail, imagine what the pros could come up with, starting with the source of any good quality DVD player and building a (multi-hundred seat) movie theater around it using professional grade electronics. Isn't it about time for the film projector to go the way of the dodo? I think all movies should be released on DVD only. Anybody with me? -Dave |
Dave C. wrote: For a little over a thousand bucks (cheap!, relatively speaking), a properly adjusted home theater setup will kick the CRAP out of any movie theaters' image quality AND sound quality. Not so sure HD projectors can get the lumens at the size of a movie theater screen. |
"Dave C." wrote in message eenews.net... For a little over a thousand bucks (cheap!, relatively speaking), a properly adjusted home theater setup will kick the CRAP out of any movie theaters' image quality AND sound quality. I'm not saying do away with movie theaters. But why do movie theaters still insist on using film based projectors? Most hit films are released on DVD in widescreen shortly after the film is released in theaters. Heck, some of them are released on DVD simultaneously. So what's the point of using the old dinosaur projectors, exactly? DVD offers the same image quality (better, depending on the display technology) and better sound quality than the scratchy soundtrack that accompanies movies on film. So why not use CRT or even DLP projectors to play DVD movies in ummmmmm, movie theaters? Think of all the money that would be saved in producing and shipping heavy, bulky rolls of film. A DVD can be shipped anywhere in the U.S. in two days for less than three bucks. If time is not critical, it can be shipped for a buck. Some might say we should do away with movie theaters entirely. I think they should just upgrade their video and sound technology to compete on a level playing field with the family rooms of many of their customers. I've heard all the complaints about obnoxious patrons, cell phones, etc. interrupting movies. All of that crap combined doesn't disappoint me as much as to pay 10 bucks for a ticket to see a movie displayed at a low level of brightness (cheap projector bulbs) with a grainy soundtrack. A DLP projector (for example) with a bad bulb STILL looks better than a film-based projector, if the source is up to snuff. (such as any DVD player hooked up with component cables) Sure, DLP can not display true black. And y'know what? . . . your average movie patron will never notice. They will see the really BRIGHT display of a DLP and think (Wow). So black looks gray? Who the frick cares? Meanwhile, the soundtrack will be like 1000% improved if the source is DVD. Even the worst DVD movies produced today offer 5.1 channel dolby digital. I hate dolby digital, but the source (DVD) sounds MUCH better than any movie theater, even at the relatively low bandwidth of DD 5.1 encoding. Some DVD soundtracks go up to 7.1 channel DTS (awesome), which very few movie theaters are even equipped to handle, at the moment. Heck, my own Onkyo/Yamaha/Cambridge Soundworks setup in my living room would blow the woofers off of any movie theater sound system for a seating area of about 150 seats or less. At extreme volume levels, even. And my home theater is hardly top end. Give me a Circuit City credit card and I could make any movie theater sound 1000% better, regardless of seating capacity. If I can do it using consumer grade equipment bought retail, imagine what the pros could come up with, starting with the source of any good quality DVD player and building a (multi-hundred seat) movie theater around it using professional grade electronics. Isn't it about time for the film projector to go the way of the dodo? I think all movies should be released on DVD only. Anybody with me? -Dave DVD is too low resoultion when blown up to the size of a theatre screen. |
DVD is too low resoultion when blown up to the size of a theatre screen. Do you think anyone would notice at the average viewing distance of a movie theater, though? Also, a new high def format has just been "agreed" upon. So resolution shouldn't be a problem much longer, regardless of viewing distance. -Dave |
Excerpts from Roger Ebert. A bit old (1999), but I don't think his
views have changed much... http://slate.msn.com/id/2000134/entry/1004176 ================================ I am as firmly in support of video production as I am opposed to the alarming specter of digital video projection in theaters - a subject that most movie critics have ignored. Most people in the industry believe the hype that digital projection is destined for the near future. The fact is that digital projection is nowhere near being practical or affordable, and even if it were - are video and film the same thing? Some perceptual scientists believe video creates a hypnotic mind state, and film creates a reverie state. Why is it that we sense, however, vaguely, a different mental state in a movie than while watching television? How ironic if Hollywood threw out a century of film to adopt a technology that did not evoke the mind-state that people buy movie tickets in order to obtain? My own feeling is that when a film is really working, it takes me to a mental state that nothing on television has ever approached. Nor have I ever felt, even on the very best video projection systems, the film experience. I am proud of my home-theater setup. A superb Runco quadrupling projector, DVD as source, THX surround, 10-foot-wide screen, etc. But film it ain't. Digital projection, of course, is not to be confused with projected television. It does not scan the screen but organizes the material into digital "frames." Whether these frames do the same thing as frames of film is doubtful, but Hollywood has certainly not spent one dime to find out. As for subjective comparisons between projected video and projected film, I have here an email from a man who asks not to be quoted by his name (which you would recognize and respect), who points out: "They're digitally projecting at 2k but also comparing against film at 2k, so that both film and digital are of equal resolution. And both are half of the normal film resolution of 4k. I would love to see them put up something digital against a film image by Freddie Young, even derived from an older (grainier) film stock. In short, as I see it, the test of digital vs. film is rigged to make digital look good." I published a long article that questions widespread beliefs about the Texas Instruments digital projection system and extols a much cheaper film projection system called MaxiVision48, which uses existing, proven technology, and produces a picture its patent holders claim is 500 percent better (not a misprint) than existing film or digital projection, take your choice. What we have here is a company (TI) with unlimited resources that wants to take film away from us and replace it with their system. And the film community is so technically uninterested and illiterate that there is no outcry. I myself feel keenly inadequate on this subject. I am not technically trained. But I got into this issue and the more I find out about it, the more disturbed I grow. As we bow gratefully to this wonderful final year of the first century of film, let us hope it is not one of the final years of celluloid itself. |
"Dave C." wrote in
eenews.net: DVD is too low resoultion when blown up to the size of a theatre screen. Do you think anyone would notice at the average viewing distance of a movie theater, though? Also, a new high def format has just been "agreed" upon. So resolution shouldn't be a problem much longer, regardless of viewing distance. -Dave Even 16mm film is WAY better than HDTV. Good widescreen filmed productions are much higher resolution and better contrast than any HDTV product yet on the market. Maybe when fiber optics are run into every home and your local cable company can count on 10-20ghz of bandwidth, into the home, you'll start to see that. That said, I'm quite happy watching movies on my HDTV. -- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 A false witness is worse than no witness at all. God is an evolutionist. |
"Dave Oldridge" wrote in message 9... "Dave C." wrote in eenews.net: DVD is too low resoultion when blown up to the size of a theatre screen. Do you think anyone would notice at the average viewing distance of a movie theater, though? Also, a new high def format has just been "agreed" upon. So resolution shouldn't be a problem much longer, regardless of viewing distance. -Dave Even 16mm film is WAY better than HDTV. Good widescreen filmed productions are much higher resolution and better contrast than any HDTV product yet on the market. Maybe when fiber optics are run into every home and your local cable company can count on 10-20ghz of bandwidth, into the home, you'll start to see that. That said, I'm quite happy watching movies on my HDTV. -- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 A false witness is worse than no witness at all. God is an evolutionist. Does anybody know a way to roughly compare the resolution of 16mm film to HDTV? I am very curious. I see a movies on a satellite HD channel like "The league of extradonariy gentlemen", and it is stunning and clear. Then I see other movies on the HD channel that look DVD quality - blurred etc. For the lower resolution movies, are they just playing DVDs on a high def. channel? How do they play movies on a high def. channel to get the high def resolution? noone |
"nonone" wrote in
: "Dave Oldridge" wrote in message 9... "Dave C." wrote in eenews.net: DVD is too low resoultion when blown up to the size of a theatre screen. Do you think anyone would notice at the average viewing distance of a movie theater, though? Also, a new high def format has just been "agreed" upon. So resolution shouldn't be a problem much longer, regardless of viewing distance. -Dave Even 16mm film is WAY better than HDTV. Good widescreen filmed productions are much higher resolution and better contrast than any HDTV product yet on the market. Maybe when fiber optics are run into every home and your local cable company can count on 10-20ghz of bandwidth, into the home, you'll start to see that. That said, I'm quite happy watching movies on my HDTV. -- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 A false witness is worse than no witness at all. God is an evolutionist. Does anybody know a way to roughly compare the resolution of 16mm film to HDTV? I am very curious. I see a movies on a satellite HD channel like "The league of extradonariy gentlemen", and it is stunning and clear. Then I see other movies on the HD channel that look DVD quality - blurred etc. For the lower resolution movies, are they just playing DVDs on a high def. channel? How do they play movies on a high def. channel to get the high def resolution? I suspect that they are sometimes filling air time with DVD movies upconverted from 480p. I notice my movie provider plays the same movies over and over a lot on their HD channel, which tells me the available HDTV movies are still limited. They are adding more all the time, though. -- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 A false witness is worse than no witness at all. God is an evolutionist. |
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 18:06:27 -0400, "Dave C." wrote:
DVD is too low resoultion when blown up to the size of a theatre screen. Do you think anyone would notice at the average viewing distance of a movie theater, though? Yes. Thumper Also, a new high def format has just been "agreed" upon. So resolution shouldn't be a problem much longer, regardless of viewing distance. -Dave |
"Dave C." wrote:
But why do movie theaters still insist on using film based projectors? Most hit films are released on DVD in widescreen shortly after the film is released in theaters. Heck, some of them are released on DVD simultaneously. So what's the point of using the old dinosaur projectors, exactly? DVD offers the same image quality (better, depending on the display technology) Wrong. You have some research to do on resolution of 70mm film vs DVD. Even 35mm (4000 lines) prints have a resolution an order of magnitude greater than DVD (700 lines). You would be seriously unhappy with a DVD projected on the typical theater screen, even with a commercial projector. |
"nonone" wrote:
Does anybody know a way to roughly compare the resolution of 16mm film to HDTV? I am very curious. 35mm film is about 4000 lines of resolution. 16mm would be half that. 70mm prints would be twice that. HDTV is either 720 or 1080 lines - no comparison. Of course, at home you are sitting 12' from the screen, where as in a theater you might be 60' or more... |
Dave C. wrote:
For a little over a thousand bucks (cheap!, relatively speaking), a properly adjusted home theater setup will kick the CRAP out of any movie theaters' image quality AND sound quality. I'm not saying do away with movie theaters. But why do movie theaters still insist on using film based projectors? Most hit films are released on DVD in widescreen shortly after the film is released in theaters. Heck, some of them are released on DVD simultaneously. So what's the point of using the old dinosaur projectors, exactly? DVD offers the same image quality (better, depending on the display technology) and better sound quality than the scratchy soundtrack that accompanies movies on film. So why not use CRT or even DLP projectors to play DVD movies in ummmmmm, movie theaters? Think of all the money that would be saved in producing and shipping heavy, bulky rolls of film. A DVD can be shipped anywhere in the U.S. in two days for less than three bucks. If time is not critical, it can be shipped for a buck. Some might say we should do away with movie theaters entirely. I think they should just upgrade their video and sound technology to compete on a level playing field with the family rooms of many of their customers. I've heard all the complaints about obnoxious patrons, cell phones, etc. interrupting movies. All of that crap combined doesn't disappoint me as much as to pay 10 bucks for a ticket to see a movie displayed at a low level of brightness (cheap projector bulbs) with a grainy soundtrack. A DLP projector (for example) with a bad bulb STILL looks better than a film-based projector, if the source is up to snuff. (such as any DVD player hooked up with component cables) Sure, DLP can not display true black. And y'know what? . . . your average movie patron will never notice. They will see the really BRIGHT display of a DLP and think (Wow). So black looks gray? Who the frick cares? Meanwhile, the soundtrack will be like 1000% improved if the source is DVD. Even the worst DVD movies produced today offer 5.1 channel dolby digital. I hate dolby digital, but the source (DVD) sounds MUCH better than any movie theater, even at the relatively low bandwidth of DD 5.1 encoding. Some DVD soundtracks go up to 7.1 channel DTS (awesome), which very few movie theaters are even equipped to handle, at the moment. Heck, my own Onkyo/Yamaha/Cambridge Soundworks setup in my living room would blow the woofers off of any movie theater sound system for a seating area of about 150 seats or less. At extreme volume levels, even. And my home theater is hardly top end. Give me a Circuit City credit card and I could make any movie theater sound 1000% better, regardless of seating capacity. If I can do it using consumer grade equipment bought retail, imagine what the pros could come up with, starting with the source of any good quality DVD player and building a (multi-hundred seat) movie theater around it using professional grade electronics. Isn't it about time for the film projector to go the way of the dodo? I think all movies should be released on DVD only. Anybody with me? -Dave I think that the issue is more copmlicated than that. Personally not having black "blacks" infuriates the hell out of me, and I have never seen a digital projection that matches a good film one. Digital just doesn't have the latitude or subtlety of film, it lacks contrast and everything looks very uniform to me. Now all our cable stations (in the UK) have gone digital I have to put up with lockups and pixelated images. Same with CD's over vinyl, inferior sound quality. I'm sure most people won't notice but why are we taking a step back? I long for a mobile phone signal that sounds as good as a terrestrial line. The list seems endless. On another note I saw "The life aqautic" at an older cinema and the sound quality was terrible becuase it was mixed for 5.1 and the antiquated system couldn't handle it. The new remixed Star Wars Dvd's are distracting to me. Why is "better" sound equated with sound that pops out at you from all corners of the movie theatre? Isn't this just a gimmick. Stanley Kubrick always said he didn't trust surround sound and I am really starting to agree with him, it seems there are very few people on the planet who can actually mix a proper track nowadays. Subtlety is so important to a movie. Visuals and sound that are even slightly off can make all the difference when watching a film as the brain has to struggle subconciously to compensate. Often people will dislike a movie for no other reason than dodgy sound but they won't even understand that was the reason themselves. Digital projection will also offer pirates unbelievable quality dupes as films will be ripped more often by jacking into the data stream rather than sitting there with a wobbly camera. |
Does anybody know a way to roughly compare the resolution of 16mm film to
HDTV? I am very curious. Film is (sort of) analog, so the resolution is (almost) infinite. But you should check out the image quality of a good DLP projector showing high-def content on a large, WIDE screen sometime. It can look better than the output of most movie theater projectors. So don't put too much weight on resolution. It's just a number. -Dave |
In article "Clark W.
Griswold, Jr." writes: "Dave C." wrote: But why do movie theaters still insist on using film based projectors? Most hit films are released on DVD in widescreen shortly after the film is released in theaters. Heck, some of them are released on DVD simultaneously. So what's the point of using the old dinosaur projectors, exactly? DVD offers the same image quality (better, depending on the display technology) Wrong. You have some research to do on resolution of 70mm film vs DVD. Even 35mm (4000 lines) prints have a resolution an order of magnitude greater than DVD (700 lines). You would be seriously unhappy with a DVD projected on the typical theater screen, even with a commercial projector. Actually big theater chains in some of the larger markets are already experimenting with digitally downloading special high resolution images and using high res, high intensity projectors. This eliminates the need for the expensive film (and hundreds if not thousands of copies of it) and transportation costs plus the displayed image never deteriorates. It also greatly simplifies theater automation. Literally the popcorn girl can run the show and never have to worry about a film break or missing a cue mark or showing reels out of order or having to change a lens, replace a cracked mirror in the lamphouse or bother with focus. No one even has to come in to "make up" the show, knocking the leaders & tails off each reel and splicing all 5 or 6 reels together on big horizontal platter film delivery systems or vertical SWORD transports. Projector maintenance is practically eliminated; few moving parts except the cooling fan. Yes a fairly expensive investment, but the payback occurs within the first couple of years. |
|
|
Currently there are about 300 dcinema theaters in the US. Within 5 years
expect most major markets to have several dcinema screens. Also expect most people to flock to these theaters. The big advantage will be no degradation in quiality after the 1000 showing and resolution equivalent to film. "Dave C." wrote in message eenews.net... For a little over a thousand bucks (cheap!, relatively speaking), a properly adjusted home theater setup will kick the CRAP out of any movie theaters' image quality AND sound quality. I'm not saying do away with movie theaters. But why do movie theaters still insist on using film based projectors? Most hit films are released on DVD in widescreen shortly after the film is released in theaters. Heck, some of them are released on DVD simultaneously. So what's the point of using the old dinosaur projectors, exactly? DVD offers the same image quality (better, depending on the display technology) and better sound quality than the scratchy soundtrack that accompanies movies on film. So why not use CRT or even DLP projectors to play DVD movies in ummmmmm, movie theaters? Think of all the money that would be saved in producing and shipping heavy, bulky rolls of film. A DVD can be shipped anywhere in the U.S. in two days for less than three bucks. If time is not critical, it can be shipped for a buck. Some might say we should do away with movie theaters entirely. I think they should just upgrade their video and sound technology to compete on a level playing field with the family rooms of many of their customers. I've heard all the complaints about obnoxious patrons, cell phones, etc. interrupting movies. All of that crap combined doesn't disappoint me as much as to pay 10 bucks for a ticket to see a movie displayed at a low level of brightness (cheap projector bulbs) with a grainy soundtrack. A DLP projector (for example) with a bad bulb STILL looks better than a film-based projector, if the source is up to snuff. (such as any DVD player hooked up with component cables) Sure, DLP can not display true black. And y'know what? . . . your average movie patron will never notice. They will see the really BRIGHT display of a DLP and think (Wow). So black looks gray? Who the frick cares? Meanwhile, the soundtrack will be like 1000% improved if the source is DVD. Even the worst DVD movies produced today offer 5.1 channel dolby digital. I hate dolby digital, but the source (DVD) sounds MUCH better than any movie theater, even at the relatively low bandwidth of DD 5.1 encoding. Some DVD soundtracks go up to 7.1 channel DTS (awesome), which very few movie theaters are even equipped to handle, at the moment. Heck, my own Onkyo/Yamaha/Cambridge Soundworks setup in my living room would blow the woofers off of any movie theater sound system for a seating area of about 150 seats or less. At extreme volume levels, even. And my home theater is hardly top end. Give me a Circuit City credit card and I could make any movie theater sound 1000% better, regardless of seating capacity. If I can do it using consumer grade equipment bought retail, imagine what the pros could come up with, starting with the source of any good quality DVD player and building a (multi-hundred seat) movie theater around it using professional grade electronics. Isn't it about time for the film projector to go the way of the dodo? I think all movies should be released on DVD only. Anybody with me? -Dave |
Anybody with me?
I think you're an idiot. Does that count? -- damnfine |
If you really want to understand this issue there are two main factors:
Electronic systems have less flicker than film based systems for a variety of reasons, including the frame rate chosen for professional movies a zillion years ago and the mechanics of film projection. For some viewers this is the only thing they see and are convinced about the superiority of video systems. However current electronic imaging systems have limited resolution and limited dynamic range compared to film. There are many prominent cinematographers who do not want to use current hi-def based video systems for this reason. You cannot effectively light a dramatic scene or work in the outdoors if you only have two f-stops of lighting values to work with or everything will look like a tv soap opera. You must understand that a cinematographer was originally called a "lighting cameraman". They do not merely aim the camera, but design the lighting so that the balance of foreground and background light achieves the desired effect. It is this control of light values in the scene that distingushes the professionally made dramatic film. This is what Oscars are given for. Movies are shot on color negative film, the ability of which to reproduce a range of light and shadow is still far greater than any video based system. This is why most television shows are shot on film and then, to save money, edited and shown on video. When film is transferred to video the wider dynamic range of lighting values is compressed down. If that range of light values was never captured in the original media there is no way to recreate it. Someday this will change but the least progress in all digital imaging systems has been in expanding the dynamic range of the digitial sensors. A well projected film image has far more depth and texture than any current video system can reproduce. Most cineplexes do not project films very well, have poor quality screens, etc. Therefore most moviegoers have rarely or never really experienced what film is capable of reproducing. If you get over the eye candy of recent Star Wars films and look at what they really are the limitations are self-evident. Human beings have to be lit so that they will fit into the limited computer generated video backgrounds. These kinds of film makers know that the audience, particularly Americans (I'm one too), is so dumbed down that if they will even come out to see these kinds of movies they will accept anything. |
Two distinct issues. One the capture of the image digitally or on film,
two the delivery of the movie in the theater. This thread was about the distribution. I would agree that film is still better in capturing the image but digital video is close to, equal to or better than film in the theater. So capture with film distribute with digital IMO. Bob Miller birdman wrote: If you really want to understand this issue there are two main factors: Electronic systems have less flicker than film based systems for a variety of reasons, including the frame rate chosen for professional movies a zillion years ago and the mechanics of film projection. For some viewers this is the only thing they see and are convinced about the superiority of video systems. However current electronic imaging systems have limited resolution and limited dynamic range compared to film. There are many prominent cinematographers who do not want to use current hi-def based video systems for this reason. You cannot effectively light a dramatic scene or work in the outdoors if you only have two f-stops of lighting values to work with or everything will look like a tv soap opera. You must understand that a cinematographer was originally called a "lighting cameraman". They do not merely aim the camera, but design the lighting so that the balance of foreground and background light achieves the desired effect. It is this control of light values in the scene that distingushes the professionally made dramatic film. This is what Oscars are given for. Movies are shot on color negative film, the ability of which to reproduce a range of light and shadow is still far greater than any video based system. This is why most television shows are shot on film and then, to save money, edited and shown on video. When film is transferred to video the wider dynamic range of lighting values is compressed down. If that range of light values was never captured in the original media there is no way to recreate it. Someday this will change but the least progress in all digital imaging systems has been in expanding the dynamic range of the digitial sensors. A well projected film image has far more depth and texture than any current video system can reproduce. Most cineplexes do not project films very well, have poor quality screens, etc. Therefore most moviegoers have rarely or never really experienced what film is capable of reproducing. If you get over the eye candy of recent Star Wars films and look at what they really are the limitations are self-evident. Human beings have to be lit so that they will fit into the limited computer generated video backgrounds. These kinds of film makers know that the audience, particularly Americans (I'm one too), is so dumbed down that if they will even come out to see these kinds of movies they will accept anything. |
"Dave C." wrote in message eenews.net... For a little over a thousand bucks (cheap!, relatively speaking), a properly adjusted home theater setup will kick the CRAP out of any movie theaters' image quality AND sound quality. I think it is the experience of going out and being part of a social activity... -- The (new and improved) Runaway Bride... Only at: http://www.cafepress.com/dwacon/601709 --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0525-5, 06/25/2005 Tested on: 6/25/2005 11:06:47 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com |
"Dave C." wrote in message eenews.net... For a little over a thousand bucks (cheap!, relatively speaking), a properly adjusted home theater setup will kick the CRAP out of any movie theaters' image quality AND sound quality. I'm not saying do away with movie theaters. But why do movie theaters still insist on using film based projectors? Most hit films are released on DVD in widescreen shortly after the film is released in theaters. Heck, some of them are released on DVD simultaneously. So what's the point of using the old dinosaur projectors, exactly? DVD offers the same image quality (better, depending on the display technology) and better sound quality than the scratchy soundtrack that accompanies movies on film. So why not use CRT or even DLP projectors to play DVD movies in ummmmmm, movie theaters? If you blew a DVD image up to the size of a movie screen you would be sorely disappointed. Film has a magnitude more resolution than a DVD. End of discussion! |
"Dave C." wrote in message eenews.net... Does anybody know a way to roughly compare the resolution of 16mm film to HDTV? I am very curious. Film is (sort of) analog, so the resolution is (almost) infinite. But you should check out the image quality of a good DLP projector showing high-def content on a large, WIDE screen sometime. It can look better than the output of most movie theater projectors. So don't put too much weight on resolution. It's just a number. -Dave So what are you calling a large wide screen? Surely not the size of even the smallest movie theater screen in your town. You cannot compare a "home" DLP projector with a 35mm projector in a theater. You are getting very confused with home theater and theater. The two do not meet ANYWHERE. |
"Mr Fixit" wrote in message ... In article "Clark W. Griswold, Jr." writes: "Dave C." wrote: But why do movie theaters still insist on using film based projectors? Most hit films are released on DVD in widescreen shortly after the film is released in theaters. Heck, some of them are released on DVD simultaneously. So what's the point of using the old dinosaur projectors, exactly? DVD offers the same image quality (better, depending on the display technology) Wrong. You have some research to do on resolution of 70mm film vs DVD. Even 35mm (4000 lines) prints have a resolution an order of magnitude greater than DVD (700 lines). You would be seriously unhappy with a DVD projected on the typical theater screen, even with a commercial projector. Actually big theater chains in some of the larger markets are already experimenting with digitally downloading special high resolution images and using high res, high intensity projectors. This eliminates the need for the expensive film (and hundreds if not thousands of copies of it) and transportation costs plus the displayed image never deteriorates. It also greatly simplifies theater automation. Literally the popcorn girl can run the show and never have to worry about a film break or missing a cue mark or showing reels out of order or having to change a lens, replace a cracked mirror in the lamphouse or bother with focus. No one even has to come in to "make up" the show, knocking the leaders & tails off each reel and splicing all 5 or 6 reels together on big horizontal platter film delivery systems or vertical SWORD transports. Projector maintenance is practically eliminated; few moving parts except the cooling fan. Yes a fairly expensive investment, but the payback occurs within the first couple of years. I think you are sorely mistaken if you think that a high end digital projector is maintenance free. They need to be focused, the sources of light need to be maintained and kept up to spec. etc etc. Problem is that the popcorn machine in most movie theaters gets more maintenance than the projectors....film or digital. I don't think that's gonna change and I don't imagine that a spectacular new digital projector is gonna look spectacular or new in a few months or a few years. |
"D J" wrote in message ... Currently there are about 300 dcinema theaters in the US. Within 5 years expect most major markets to have several dcinema screens. Also expect most people to flock to these theaters. The big advantage will be no degradation in quiality after the 1000 showing and resolution equivalent to film. What you mean to say is no degradation of the source material. The projectors....well that's another story. |
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 17:23:18 -0400, "Dave C." spewed forth
these words of wisdom: For a little over a thousand bucks (cheap!, relatively speaking), a properly adjusted home theater setup will kick the CRAP out of any movie theaters' image quality AND sound quality. We have a theater with a Lucasfilm-licensed Barco DLP system. I believe that the movies are shipped on removable hard drives. Star Wars Episode III was the best-looking digital display I had ever seen! -- "I'm not a cool person in real life, but I play one on the Internet" Galley |
Dave C. wrote:
For a little over a thousand bucks (cheap!, relatively speaking), a properly adjusted home theater setup will kick the CRAP out of any movie theaters' image quality AND sound quality. I'm hardly a home theater expert, but $1,000 wouldn't get you anywhere near the quality of most movie theaters. Even if you're not factoring in the TV/projector, you'd have to spend a lot more than that to have a real high-end system. This was a real bad attempt at trolling. |
|
"dwacon" wrote:
I think it is the experience of going out and being part of a social activity... Used to be, but no longer. Getting raked over at the box office, followed by the concession stand, and then dealing with cell phones, crying babies, conversations, running commentary and people eating 7 course meals out of wax paper have destroyed that experience for a lot of people. |
|
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:52:21 -0400, Dave C. wrote:
Does anybody know a way to roughly compare the resolution of 16mm film to HDTV? I am very curious. Film is (sort of) analog, so the resolution is (almost) infinite. Stop right there. This is incredibly wrong. Analog has limited resolution, just like digital. EVERYTHING physical has limited resolution. Infinite resolution is equivalent to perpetual motion. Both film and video use discrete samples over time, with rather poor sample rates at that. Spatial resolution of film is limited by grain size and imprecise positioning of the film in the camera and projector. Analog video is limited by the number of scan lines and the bandwidth of the signal. Digital video has obvious limits in the number of pixels, plus compression artifacts. And, of course, the resolution of the optical systems can be a problem, regardless of how the image is stored. Color resolution is limited in all systems, because none of them match the spectral characteristics of the human eye. Each technology has advantages and disadvantages in how the respond to color. The dynamic range of the light intensity is limited in all systems, on both the recording and playback side. You always lose information on both the dark end and the white end. With film, that's understood well enough that it's used as an intentional effect. With video, it's usually unintentional ;-) Any analog system has a maximum value, and a minimum value. Everyone understands that there is a maximum. Many people overlook the minimum. It has a technical name: noise. The dynamic range has a technical name, too: signal to noise ratio. You can't resolve anything smaller than the noise level, or greater than the maximum value. Analog, digital, it doesn't matter: there is always a limit to the resolution. |
"Pat" wrote in message news:[email protected] Dave C. wrote: For a little over a thousand bucks (cheap!, relatively speaking), a properly adjusted home theater setup will kick the CRAP out of any movie theaters' image quality AND sound quality. I'm hardly a home theater expert, but $1,000 wouldn't get you anywhere near the quality of most movie theaters. Even if you're not factoring in the TV/projector, you'd have to spend a lot more than that to have a real high-end system. This was a real bad attempt at trolling. You probably can't buy a lens cap for a theater sized projector for $1000 bucks. |
Why? Because despite the major cities of this country being dominated
by a few big chains (AMC, Sony-Lowes, Regal, ect), most people go to the show at a theatre that is either locally owned, or part of a small, regional chain. These local owners, raked over the coals by the studios as to their box office split, and charging for popcorn at the limit of the locals ability to pay, can't afford to switch over to digital projection. A decently maintained 35mm projector can easily last 30, 40, or even 50 years. A drive-in I used to frequent in college (around 1998) was still using it's original projectors and lamp houses from the 1950's. It's the only time I've been priviledged to watch a twin-changeover, carbon-arc booth in operation. The owner said finding carbon rods was becoming an issue, but the projectors still worked fine. Now, imagine being asked to replace perfectly good projectors with this new technology, at maybe $50,000 or more per screen, and then being told to trust that they would last as long as your trusty 35mm set up. Imagine you're a regional chain with 50 to 100 screens. Or you own a small town twin, and pull only $50k of profit out of it each year. 2 or 3 years profit, all to save the studios money. That's big bucks. The DLP set ups in use today, are computer and hard drive driven. They might not be compatible with the next "new thing" 20 years down the road. Maybe not even 10. Computer technology always abandons its past. That all being said, as HD displays become increasingly affordable, and if a HD disc format can get off the ground, traditional movie theatres might be in trouble. If 50-60 inch screens are available to most people at an affordable price, plunking down $40-$50 to take a family to the show will look less palatable then say a $4-$5 blockbuster night with microwave popcorn. Just my 2 cents. As a former 35mm projectionist, I'll miss them when they're gone. I took a lot of pride in everything being "just right." I loved the sound of the crowd on opening night. I loved everything about it. I just wish it paid worth a damn. I'd be back in the first booth that would have me. -beaumon |
In article "Charles Tomaras" writes:
I think you are sorely mistaken if you think that a high end digital projector is maintenance free. They need to be focused, the sources of light need to be maintained and kept up to spec. etc etc. They need to be focused, ONCE. They stay focused. Anyone here complaining about their DLP at home needing regular re-focusing? Now, the same should be true of film, one would think, but it doesn't seem so. The maintenance is vastly lower. One doesn't need to keep dust and crud out of the film gate. There is no wear that causes frames to not register the same -- so the picture stays stable in the same spot on the screen. Problem is that the popcorn machine in most movie theaters gets more maintenance than the projectors....film or digital. It probably brings in more profit. I don't think that's gonna change and I don't imagine that a spectacular new digital projector is gonna look spectacular or new in a few months or a few years. Well, folks with DLP sets at home are reporting them keeping their image quality just fine with no adjustments or maintenance, and those have the added maintenance issue of a spinning color wheel (theater units have three digital micromirror devices). The only reason I suspect some truth in this is that DLP projection will get better and better, as higher resolution devices come out, and devices with higher operating frequencies are produced to produce finer levels of brightness accuracy. I don't expect film to improve in any perceptable way. Alan |
"dwacon" wrote in message news:[email protected] "Dave C." wrote in message eenews.net... For a little over a thousand bucks (cheap!, relatively speaking), a properly adjusted home theater setup will kick the CRAP out of any movie theaters' image quality AND sound quality. I think it is the experience of going out and being part of a social activity... Well, yes. That's why movie theaters will always be in business. What I'm saying is, why can't the movie theaters simply play DVDs. But then, someone else posted that there are movie theaters already downloading movies in some kind of digital format. So I guess it's already in the works, kind f. -Dave |
So what are you calling a large wide screen? Surely not the size of even the smallest movie theater screen in your town. You cannot compare a "home" DLP projector with a 35mm projector in a theater. You are getting very confused with home theater and theater. The two do not meet ANYWHERE. Well the largest screen I've seen used with a DLP projector was 7.5' high by 26' wide (yes, I know that's about a 32:9 aspect ratio, but). It looks pretty damn good at roughly 35' viewing distance. Heck, a screen even half that size is larger than the screens used in some movie theaters I've been to. The last movie I saw in a theater (Cinderella Man, good movie) was projected on a screen roughly 9' tall and 20' wide. I've seen smaller screens than that used in multiplex theaters. -Dave |
We have a theater with a Lucasfilm-licensed Barco DLP system. I believe
that the movies are shipped on removable hard drives. Star Wars Episode III was the best-looking digital display I had ever seen! Cool. Now when the new DVD format is more common, there will be no need to ship the hard drive anymore. -Dave |
"D J" wrote in message ... Currently there are about 300 dcinema theaters in the US. Within 5 years expect most major markets to have several dcinema screens. Also expect most people to flock to these theaters. The big advantage will be no degradation in quiality after the 1000 showing and resolution equivalent to film. "Dave C." wrote in message eenews.net... For a little over a thousand bucks (cheap!, relatively speaking), a properly adjusted home theater setup will kick the CRAP out of any movie theaters' image quality AND sound quality. I'm not saying do away with movie theaters. But why do movie theaters still insist on using film based projectors? Most hit films are released on DVD in widescreen shortly after the film is released in theaters. Heck, some of them are released on DVD simultaneously. So what's the point of using the old dinosaur projectors, exactly? DVD offers the same image quality (better, depending on the display technology) and better sound quality than the scratchy soundtrack that accompanies movies on film. So why not use CRT or even DLP projectors to play DVD movies in ummmmmm, movie theaters? Think of all the money that would be saved in producing and shipping heavy, bulky rolls of film. A DVD can be shipped anywhere in the U.S. in two days for less than three bucks. If time is not critical, it can be shipped for a buck. Some might say we should do away with movie theaters entirely. I think they should just upgrade their video and sound technology to compete on a level playing field with the family rooms of many of their customers. I've heard all the complaints about obnoxious patrons, cell phones, etc. interrupting movies. All of that crap combined doesn't disappoint me as much as to pay 10 bucks for a ticket to see a movie displayed at a low level of brightness (cheap projector bulbs) with a grainy soundtrack. A DLP projector (for example) with a bad bulb STILL looks better than a film-based projector, if the source is up to snuff. (such as any DVD player hooked up with component cables) Sure, DLP can not display true black. And y'know what? . . . your average movie patron will never notice. They will see the really BRIGHT display of a DLP and think (Wow). So black looks gray? Who the frick cares? Meanwhile, the soundtrack will be like 1000% improved if the source is DVD. Even the worst DVD movies produced today offer 5.1 channel dolby digital. I hate dolby digital, but the source (DVD) sounds MUCH better than any movie theater, even at the relatively low bandwidth of DD 5.1 encoding. Some DVD soundtracks go up to 7.1 channel DTS (awesome), which very few movie theaters are even equipped to handle, at the moment. Heck, my own Onkyo/Yamaha/Cambridge Soundworks setup in my living room would blow the woofers off of any movie theater sound system for a seating area of about 150 seats or less. At extreme volume levels, even. And my home theater is hardly top end. Give me a Circuit City credit card and I could make any movie theater sound 1000% better, regardless of seating capacity. If I can do it using consumer grade equipment bought retail, imagine what the pros could come up with, starting with the source of any good quality DVD player and building a (multi-hundred seat) movie theater around it using professional grade electronics. Isn't it about time for the film projector to go the way of the dodo? I think all movies should be released on DVD only. Anybody with me? -Dave I saw Star Wars: The Phantom Menace in a digital (DLP) theater (Paramus NJ) *6 years* ago. Looked good. |
"Pat" wrote in message
news:[email protected] Dave C. wrote: For a little over a thousand bucks (cheap!, relatively speaking), a properly adjusted home theater setup will kick the CRAP out of any movie theaters' image quality AND sound quality. I'm hardly a home theater expert, but $1,000 wouldn't get you anywhere near the quality of most movie theaters. Even if you're not factoring in the TV/projector, you'd have to spend a lot more than that to have a real high-end system. This was a real bad attempt at trolling. Sony's 4K SXRD [LCoS] projector: 10,000 ANSI lumen, claimed contrast: 4000:1, 4096 x 2160 pixels. "...on a 27-foot wide, 16:9 screen, each pixel is only about the size of the letter 'e' in Liberty on a quarter." http://news.sel.sony.com/pressrelease/4864 I'll take a wild guess that the replacement lamps cost around $7,000.00. :-) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:26 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com